STRATEGIC PLANNING MATURITY IN DUBAI

Analysis of the Public Sector Survey

1. Executive Summary
Strategic Planning is a critical discipline in the Public Sector and one that has been established in Dubai for a long time. TCO set out to measure the maturity of this discipline across organizations and to gauge the level of satisfaction with the process and its outcome. As a basis for our study we asked senior leaders and other strategy practitioners in Dubai a series of questions drawn from the TCO Strategic Planning Maturity Model. The model is made up of seven key factors which together contribute to a mature process and result in an effective strategic plan. These seven factors measure the relevance, inclusiveness, dynamism, understanding, measurability, assignment and inter-connectivity of the process. In our survey, we found that most respondents (nearly 80%) expressed satisfaction with the strategic planning process in their organizations. The responses overall illustrate that the process is very mature and that it typically results in a strategic plan that: is used as the basis for decision-making and is supported by all levels of the organization; represents all stakeholders; is updated periodically; is supported by research; and contains measurable performance indicators. However, survey responses also showed that there is still room for improvement in some areas. For example, when asked whether implementation of the strategic plan is cascaded to all levels of the organization, agreement was only 72%, and when asked whether employees understand how their work contributes to achieving organizational goals, the level of agreement reached only 65%. While attitudes were generally positive across the board, there were interesting and significant nuances of opinion between management levels on the strategic planning process. C-level Executives (Tier 1) and Mid-level Managers (Tier 3) had the highest opinion of the process (89% satisfaction on average, compared to 69% for non C-level Executives (Tier 2) such as Directors and Heads of Department). And when asked about the stakeholders involved in the strategic planning process, C-level Executives were far more likely to include outside organizations, citizens and other private actors as key stakeholders. This may indicate that interaction with these outside actors does not occur at all levels of the organization. Differences in responses were also noted between those working in the Strategy Department and those outside of it. Respondents outside of the Strategy Department had a slightly more favorable view of the maturity of the strategic planning process at almost every major point, perhaps owing to their relative distance from the process. To summarize then, we can say that strategic planning in the public sector in Dubai is a highly developed and robust process. It exhibits all the characteristics associated with a mature process, even if some of its characteristics can still be improved. In our conclusion, we have highlighted four areas for senior public sector managers and their strategic planning departments to consider improving going forward, namely: linking with critical internal departments, the collection and analysis of data, strategic alignment of the organization and individual performance management.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector

2. Introduction to the Survey

To better understand the current state of strategic planning practices in the public sector, TCO conducted a survey of senior leaders and other strategy practitioners in Dubai to learn how their organizations approach strategic planning. Using data collected during the survey, the respondents can be divided into two broad groups: Those playing specific strategy roles in an organization (typically those within the Strategy Department), and those in nonstrategy roles (See Figure 1).
Figure 1: Percent of total respondents, according to their role in the responding organization

Figure 2: Percent of total respondents, according to their position in the organization (i.e. Management Tier)

Tier 3, 32%

Tier 2, 46%

Tier 1, 14%

Tier 4, 5% Tier 5, 4%

3. Strategic Planning Maturity Model

The survey questions were developed around seven key factors that make up the TCO Strategic Planning Maturity Model. According to that model, a mature strategic planning process should strongly exhibit these 7 specific characteristics. It should be: Relevant (i.e., used as the basis for decision-making and supported by all levels of the organization) Inclusive (i.e., represent all stakeholders and all levels of the organization) Dynamic (i.e., not a static one-time process, but updated periodically and adapted to changed environmental circumstances) Fact-based (i.e., informed and supported by rigorous research and a deep understanding of customers) Measurable (i.e., contain clear and achievable performance indicators) Cascaded (i.e., cascade responsibility for carrying out the strategy to all levels of an organization) Connected (i.e., linked to essential departments within the organization, such as Human Resources, Budgeting, and Performance Management) 2

Nonstrategy 53%

Strategy 47%

The respondents can be further categorized as five groups, according to their position, or Tier, within each organization (Figure 2): Tier 1: C-level Executives (i.e., Directors General (DGs), Assistant DGs, CEOs, etc) Tier 2: Non C-level Executives (i.e., Directors and Heads of Department); Tier 3: Mid-level Management Tier 4: Senior Staff, and Tier 5: Staff Members

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector

To gauge the overall maturity of strategic planning, each multiple-choice response was given a numerical score (depending on the strength of agreement with the question statement), the scores were aggregated by factor to calculate an overall total for that factor, and then the results were plotted on a radar chart (Figure 3). Overall, the survey found that strategic planning is a mature and well -defined practice in Dubai and in most government entities. Particularly high results were recorded for several factors, indicating an elevated level of maturity: Relevant, Inclusive, and Measurable were rated very positively, followed only slightly behind by Dynamic. Scores for Fact-Based were good, yet below the level of the previous four factors, indicating there was room for improvement. The remaining and lowest scoring factors were Cascaded and Connected, which scored at just half the level of the other factors, indicating that these are areas that can potentially benefit from immediate attention.
Figure 3: Strategic Planning Maturity Radar Chart
Relevant 100% 80% Connected 60% Inclusive

Figure 4: Overall satisfaction with the strategic planning process

5% 11% 16%

68%
Very satisfied Satisfied Not so satisfied Not at all satisfied

Interestingly, the lowest level of satisfaction with the strategic planning process was found among Tier 2 Managers, just below the C-level Executives (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Overall satisfaction with the strategic 1 planning process (by Management Tier)

89%

88%

40% 20% 0%
Cascaded Dynamic
Tier 1

69%

Tier 2

Tier 3

Measurable

Fact-Based

These summary findings also squared with the perceptions of individuals: Nearly 80% of survey respondents declared themselves satisfied or very satisfied with the strategic planning process in their organization (Figure 4).

Some Tier 4 and Tier 5 responses were received, but were too few to be able to generalize about the opinions of those categories | Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 3

4. The Strategic Planning Process

At the start of the survey, participants were asked questions regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the process for conducting actual strategic planning. The overwhelming majority (96%) of respondents indicated that there was a dedicated strategic planning department in their organization. Those that answered No were working in either subunits of larger entities or very small organizations. The average length of the strategic planning cycle overall was 3 years, although there appeared to be some confusion about that timeframe within some organizations: Respondents from the same organization often disagreed about the length of the same planning cycle. However, regardless of the specific cycle length, 86% of respondents claimed that their organization conducts a review of that strategy each year.

Responses to questions posed about the staff that is responsible for the process indicated that although it is not considered easy to find qualified individuals in the UAE to fill strategy positions, the existing strategic planning staff was considered highly skilled by most of the respondents (Figure 6). Perhaps not surprisingly, those in the Strategy Department were most negative about the possibility of getting qualified staff with more than 70% of those respondents disagreeing2 with the statement It is easy to find qualified individuals in the UAE to fill strategic planning positions in my organization, compared to less than 50% of non-strategy practitioners who disagreed with that statement.

5. Specific Questions on the Factors

a) The Relevance Factor
By far, the highest scoring factor was Relevant, indicating that the strategic plan is used as the basis for decision-making and that the strategy is supported by all levels of the organization. Most respondents (86%) agreed that new initiatives are approved based on their contribution to achieving the overall goals of the organization. 84% agreed that management was committed to the strategy, while commitment was perceived to be somewhat lower among employees. 88% felt that the strategic planning process let them understand clearly what role their
2

Figure 6: Responses to questions regarding the nature of strategic planning staff

2% 2.4 The strategic planning staff at my organization are highly skilled 18% 17%

63%
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

2.5 It is easy to find qualified individuals in the UAE to fill strategic planning positions in my organization

9%

7%

35% 49%

For simplicitys sake throughout this analysis, unless specifically noted otherwise, we will refer to all respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with a statement as having agreed with it, and likewise refer to those who disagreed or strongly disagreed as having disagreed. | Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 4

organization plays in achieving the broader Federal and Emirate strategies. There were certain noticeable differences here between the respondent groups although opinions of non-strategy practitioners on the relevance of the strategy to the operation of the organization were 10% higher than the opinions of individuals who were actually working in the Strategy Departments.

Figure 7: Difference in perception between strategy and non-strategy stakeholders

Which of the following stakeholders are involved in the strategic planning process (Responses by Role) Residents NGOs Citizens The Private Sector Central Government Other Government Departments 30% Strategy 37% Non-Strategy 33% 40% 44% 53% 44% 57% 48% 53% 52% 70% 82% 70% 96% 93% 93% 97%

b) The Inclusiveness Factor

Overall, there was strong agreement among the respondents that the cultures of their organizations do encourage strategic planning and those who have to carry out the strategy are actually involved in setting it. Substantial minorities, however, disagreed that everyone is encouraged to contribute to the process or that the strategy is always communicated well to stakeholders (26% and 30%, respectively). Respondents were also asked to identify the different stakeholders involved in the strategic planning process. On the whole, there was broad agreement that the Strategy Department and the senior leadership are closely involved in the process. Beyond this point, the responses diverged significantly, illustrating a difference in the perceptions of strategy and non-strategy practitioners and between management levels at the organization. For example, more than 80% of strategy practitioners consider employees to be a key stakeholder; yet only 70% of non-strategy practitioners do. That difference is significant. On the other hand, when compared to the opinions of the strategy group, the nonstrategy practitioners consider every remaining stakeholder group to be more involved in the process, including residents, NGOs, government departments and the private sector (Figure 7).

Employees
The Strategy Departments Senior Leadership

When considering the differences in perception among tiers of management, the picture is even more interesting. For example, Tier 1 managers believe more strongly than the others that all stakeholders are involved in the process, especially employees (Figure 8). When considering NGOs and residents as stakeholders, the difference in perception between Tier 1 and Tier 3 becomes extremely divergent. Tier 1 managers are 15 times more likely to point to NGOs, and almost 5 times more likely to point to residents than are those in Tier 3. One plausible explanation for this discrepancy could simply be the distance of these tiers from these external stakeholder groups. The higher that one rests in the hierarchy, the more outward looking ones focus becomes. This explanation is reinforced by the fact that Tier 2 perceptions are situated generally between Tier 1 and Tier 3. Some respondents also highlighted additional stakeholders not mentioned in the survey questions, such as Boards of Directors and International Expert Advisers.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector

Figure 8: Differences in perception among management tiers on the stakeholders involved in strategic planning

Which of the following stakeholders are involved in the strategic planning process (Responses by Management Tier) Residents Citizens The Private Sector NGOs 28% Other Government Departments Central Government Employees The Strategy Department Senior Leadership 35% 35% 42% 44% 50% 46% 44% 44% 58% 73% 72% 75% 75% 75% 88% 100% 88% 92% 88% 50% 88% Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

11% 6%

100%

96% 94%

c) The Dynamism Factor

The recent global economic crisis has caused many organizations to rethink their strategies in light of changed circumstances. Having a flexible and dynamic planning process makes adapting to changes easier for an organization, and by extension also for its employees. It was, therefore, encouraging to see that 86% or respondents agreed with the statement, Our strategy can change quickly when faced with sudden environmental changes. Among strategy practitioners as a group, positive responses exceeded 96%! A large proportion of respondents (79%) also felt that negative performance results led quickly to an investigation of the problem and corrective actions to address it, including a rethink of the entire strategy, if necessary.

Less positive, but still good, were the responses recorded when we asked about reviewing progress against the strategy with stakeholders and whether the strategic planning process adequately identified the risks that an organization faces (Figure 9). Both of these aspects support a flexible and adaptive strategic planning process, and the uncertain responses indicate that more work can be done in this area.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector

Figure 9: Responses to the question The strategic planning process at my organization adequately identifies the risks we face.

Figure 10: Factors influencing strategic decisionmaking

Strategic decisions in my organization are made based on: (Please select all that apply) Reaction to crises

65% 27% 76% 27%

62% 55%

14%

Political bargaining between powerful stakeholder groups

Facts and data about issues

32% 54%

Personal interests of individuals Forecasts about the future External pressure from government decision makers

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

d) The Fact-Based Factor

It is well known that compiling good data from which to make strategic recommendations can be difficult in Dubai; indeed, more than 40% of the respondents agreed that this was a problem. Yet respondents also felt overwhelmingly that an absence of existing data can be somewhat compensated for by a structured and formal strategic planning process that explores all issues thoroughly -- 91% felt that the strategic planning process itself helps them better understand what drives the issues they face. The net result was that 78% of respondents believed that their organizations were able to understand their customers and their needs well, despite the well- known absence of precise data. Respondents were also asked to identify which items had the most influence on strategic decision-making in their organizations. Overall, the most relevant items were seen to be facts and data, reactions to crises, and forecasts about the future (Figure 10).

Yet as weve seen before, the perceptions of the relative importance of each of the items varied by role and position of the individual doing the choosing. For example, with respect to external pressure from government decision-makers, non-strategy practitioners were twice as likely to see this aspect as an important factor as those in the strategy department (Figure 11). Still, there was unanimity of opinion among all three management levels on the subject (Figure 12).
Figure 11: Difference in perception between practitioners on the factors that influence strategic decision-making
Strategic decisions in my organization are made based on: (Responses by Role)
Personal interests of individuals Political bargaining between powerful stakeholder groups
28%
27%

Strategy Non-Strategy

28% 27%

External pressure from government decision makers

36%

67%

Forecasts about the future

48%

67%

Reactions to crises

64%
63%

76%

Facts and data about issues

70%

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector

Conversely, a persons role in the organization had no impact on his or her perception of the role played by personal interest in strategic decision-making, yet Tier 2 managers were 6 times more likely than Tier 3 Managers to see this point as relevant.
Figure 12: Differences in perception among the management tiers on the factors that influence strategic decision-making
Strategic decisions in my organization are made based on: (Responses by Management Tier) Personal interests of individuals Political bargaining between powerful stakeholder groups External pressure from government decision makers Forecasts about the future Reaction to crises 13% 38% Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Figure 13: Percent of respondents agreeing with the statements (by Role)
Our strategy defines a clear set of strategic outcomes for the organization We understand what drives the outcomes we are trying to achieve 96% 90% 92% 87% 83% 80% 88% 83% 87% 77%

We are able to satisfactorily measure our progress as an organization against our strategic outcomes We have selected the right performance indicators to measure progress Performance Management is a key stakeholder in the strategic planning process

6%
13% 19%

31%
50% 50% 50% 54%

Strategy

Non-Strategy

75% 69% 75%

65% 56%

Facts and data about issues

77% 69%

88%

Tier 1 managers resoundingly lent their support to this positive opinion, with an average agreement rate in response to each of these questions exceeding 97%!

f) The Cascaded Factor e) The Measurable Factor

The strategic planning process should result in a selection of a few strategic goals for the organization to achieve; performance targets need to be defined for each of these goals and performance measurement systems used to ensure progress toward the desired outcomes. Our survey found that respondents believed that their organizations do an excellent job of defining strategic outcomes (93%), understanding what drives them (89%), choosing performance indicators (85%), and measuring results (81%). Opinions within the Strategy Department on this subject and on whether Performance Management is a key stakeholder in the process were 6% higher here than in the rest of the organization (Figure 13), probably because these activities represent the core competencies of the Strategy Department and its vision. The results of the study become less positive when we move to assigning ownership of initiatives and cascading responsibility for achieving the strategy to different levels of the organization. While 83% of respondents agreed that every major initiative in the strategy has a clear owner, there is also a perception that strategic Initiatives that involve more than one department are not coordinated as well. And when asked if responsibility for achieving strategic objectives is cascaded to all levels of the organization, agreement fell to just 72% overall (Figure 14), and to 70% among actual strategy practitioners.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector

Figure 14: Responses to the question: Responsibility for achieving strategic objectives cascades to all levels of the organization.

Figure 15: Opinion of respondents on whether HR is closely linked to the strategic planning process in their organizations.

2%
13% 26% 8% 11%

38% 58%

43%

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree Agree

g) The Connected Factor

The last factor we considered in the survey was whether the strategy is connected to the rest of the organization in a meaningful way. For example, do employees in the Budgeting and HR departments understand, and are they rewarded for, how their work contributes to achieving the overall strategy? The results in this area were the most problematic of all of them. Given the positive sentiment around the measurability of the strategic plan, we should expect that the Performance Management Department is considered a key stakeholder in a strategic planning process -- and that is indeed what we found: 81% of respondents believed so. Finance and Budgeting were also seen as important stakeholders, but not by as high a margin: this time only 72% agreed. And as for Human Resources, the picture became more mixed: fully 45% of respondents disagreed with the notion that HR is closely linked to the strategic planning process (Figure 15). Tier 2 managers had the least positive perception of any on this issue.

This result leads us finally to the questions of whether employees understand the role they play in achieving the strategic goals of their organization and if they are in fact rewarded for a positive contribution. Agreement on the first aspect reached only 65% among survey respondents, indicating that improvements could be made to individual performance management processes within organizations. If employees are unaware of how their work contributes to achieving organizational outcomes, they can be improved through a structured performance management system that sets goals according to the role each individual plays in that strategy. Moreover, this lack of awareness by employees is tightly bound to a perception that employees whose work does help achieve the strategic objectives are not rewarded well enough. Survey respondents were the least positive on this subject of any in the entire survey, (Figure 16), and this was one of only two survey questions where a majority of respondents disagreed with the statement (see Section 3: Strategic Planning Process for the other).

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector

Figure 16: Percent of respondents agreeing with the statement

Employees understand how their work contributes to achieving corporate goals

Employees are rewarded for their contribution to achieving the strategic objectives

65%

35%

6. How organizational roles affect perceptions of strategic planning

One of the most interesting findings of our survey was the difference in perception that was found between the Strategy Department and the rest of the organization on the subject of strategic planning. In addition to the areas we have already discussed, the Strategy Department overall had a measurably less positive outlook for the overall process (Figure 17).
Figure 17: Percent of respondents agreeing with the question (based on Role in the organization)
It is easy to find qualified individuals in the UAE to fill strategic planning positions in my organization There is a lot of good data available to accurately understand the current situation we face Employees understand how their work contributes to achieving corporate goals We hold regular meetings with stakeholders to review progress against the strategy Employees at my organization are committed to the corporate strategy
Negative performance results are used to drive corrective action

53 30 63 52 73 54

Non- Strategy Strategy

80 56 80 59 83 74 83 70 83 74 87 68 90 70 93 78

Our strategy is used as a guide for management decision making

How satisfied are you overall with the strategic I am satisfied with the overall strategic planning planning process in your organization? process in my organization

My organization understands well our customers and their needs The culture of my organization encourages strategic planning New initiatives are approved based on their contribution to achieving the strategic objectives

This finding begs the question of whose perception is the correct one. However, perhaps the opinions are nothing more than a reflection of the expectations of the groups, rather than an exact measure of fact. Taking this approach, opinion in the Strategy Department may be lower since employees here begin with higher expectations. For the non-strategy practitioners, the opposite may be true. Whatever the cause, it is likely that the real answer lies somewhere between the two positions. | Strategic Planning in the Public Sector 10

7. Recommendations
To summarize then, we can say that strategic planning in the public sector is a highly developed and robust process. It exhibits all the characteristics associated with a mature process, even if some of its characteristics can still be improved. Based on the results of our survey, we propose four recommendations for consideration to assist senior public sector managers and their strategic planning departments to enhance performance: Improve links with critical internal departments: The strategy department is not the only department responsible for developing a strategic plan; there is an entire planning value chain that includes Budgeting, Human Resources, Performance Management, and many other units. A collaborative mindset must be fostered where all concerned departments work together to align with a common strategy to achieve the organizational objectives. Achieving this goal means that barriers must be broken down between departments and business units that have historically performed their work in isolated silos. Senior management especially has a critical role to play in creating this culture of collaboration. One successful strategy to encourage a collaborative mindset could be to develop a permanent Strategic Planning Advisory Committee that includes senior managers from each of the critical departments and meets periodically to review performance and consider new directions. This committee should be convened by the Strategy Department and would ensure that all voices are heard in the process. Improve the collection and analysis of data: Accurate information is critical to defining a successful strategy. Better data can reveal more information about the risks your organization faces and improve forecasting about the future. Trying to build a strategy in the absence of precise data carries the risk that your initiatives will not be the right ones. One immediate way to improve the collection of useful data is to bring more stakeholders into the planning process and enhance the interactions with them for example, through periodic reviews of the strategy and dialogue with outside entities. Household surveys are another excellent way to collect data and also include residents in the process at the same time. Making use of central statistical departments can greatly facilitate these studies. Scenario planning is another successful tool for forecasting and preparing for various alternatives. The data generated will ultimately reduce the reactive nature of strategy and allow strategic planners to place more of their emphasis where it belongs on planning. Improve strategic alignment: Your strategic plan should be the engine that drives the activities of your organization. The work of each department must be linked directly to achieving the mission of the organization. To do

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector

11

this, the organization may need to be restructured if your strategy has changed substantially in the last 18 months. You cannot expect to deliver a new strategy with an old organization. Make sure that each strategic initiative has a clear owner, especially if the initiative spans departments. One effective tool for managing cross-cutting initiatives is to formalize the responsibilities of each department in a Memorandum of Understanding or Performance Agreement, and then assign one owner who is responsible for managing tasks. Assigning ownership of initiatives and cascading responsibility to all levels will give your organization better clarity of purpose that can invigorate even the oldest and most conservative of public sector entities. Improve the individual performance management process: Organizations are ultimately made up of individuals, not departments and business units; so in the end, the achievement of any strategic objectives will depend on the performance of individuals. If employees understand the role their work plays in the larger structure and believe that good performance will be recognized, the outcomes for the entire organization are likely to improve. Employees can be shown how their work contributes to achieving the organizational objectives through the application of a structured performance management system that explicitly links individual performance goals to specific initiatives and activities that then become a part of the full organizational strategy.

| Strategic Planning in the Public Sector

12

TCOs Strategic Planning Maturity Survey The survey took place between the 6th and 17th of June, 2010, and included more than 200 individuals working in 31 public sector entities in Dubai, both large and small. The anonymous survey was conducted online in both Arabic and English, and the responses received were divided roughly 50/50 between the two languages. Most of the questions were presented in multiple-choice format, allowing respondents to either strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. There was no option for neutral or Dont Know responses. The response rate for our survey was excellent: 60 individuals took the time to answer the questionnaire, and we received at least one response from more than 70% of the entities surveyed.

TCO Management Consulting is an initiative born out of the need for first-class consulting support in the delivery and implementation of strategic initiatives across all forms of government. We provide advisory services to public sector organizations in Dubai, other Emirates, and the MENA region. Through our precise focus on the quality of service delivery, capability development, and knowledge management, TCO aspires to be a Strategic Partner in Public Sector Innovation. This survey and White Paper were prepared by Daniel Whitehead, a Management Consultant with TCO based in Dubai. Daniel leads TCOs Public Sector Strategy & Policy Practice and has managed numerous strategic planning engagements across the Middle East, Europe, and North America. Support for this White Paper was provided by Turan Malik, a Principal Consultant with TCO. For more information please contact: Daniel Whitehead, +971 (0)50 189 7263 or daniel.whitehead@tcoconsulting.com

Visit www.tcoconsulting.com to learn more about TCO

2010 TCO. All rights Reserved.